PWIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA  PUBLICATIONS 

COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 


HOG  FEEDING  EXPERIMENTS 


BY 

J.  I.  THOMPSON  and  EDWIN  C.  VOORHIES 


i  mi  hi  1 1 1 1  iiiiimn  I'liift  ii1  if  I'll  »  ^I'SLsmsmmmmMikMmtimmMizt^mmKm 


BULLETIN  No.  342 

April,  1922 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRESS 

BERKELEY 

1922 


David  P.  Barrows,  President  of  the  University. 

EXPERIMENT  STATION  STAFF 

HEADS   OF  DIVISIONS 

Thomas  Forsyth  Hunt,  Dean. 

Edward  J.  Wickson,  Horticulture  (Emeritus). 

',  Director  of  Resident  Instruction 

C.  M.  Haring,  Veterinary  Science,  Director  of  Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 

B.  H.  Crocheron,  Director  of  Agricultural  Extension. 

H.  J.  Webber,  Citriculture ;  Director  of  Citrus  Experiment  Station. 

C.  B.  Hutchison,  Plant  Breeding;  Director  of  the  Branch  of  Agriculture. 

Hubert  E.  Van  Norman,  Dairy  Management. 
William  A.  Setchell,  Botany. 
Myer  E.  Jaffa,  Nutrition. 
Ralph  E.  Smith,  Plant  Pathology. 
John  W.  Gilmore,  Agronomy. 
Charles  F.  Shaw,  Soil  Technology. 
John  W.  Gregg,  Landscape  Gardening  and  Floriculture. 
Frederic  T.  Bioletti,  Viticulture  and  Fruit  Products. 
Warren  T.  Clarke,  Agricultural  Extension. 
Ernest  B.  Babcock,  Genetics. 
Gordon  H.  True,  Animal  Husbandry. 
Walter  Mulford,  Forestry. 
James  T.  Barrett,  Plant  Pathology. 
Fritz  W.  Woll,  Animal  Nutrition. 
W.  P.  Kelley,  Agricultural  Chemistry. 
H.  J.  Quayle,  Entomology. 
Elwood  Mead,  Rural  Institutions. 
H.  S.  Reed,  Plant  Physiology. 
L.  D.  Batchelor,  Orchard  Management. 
J.  C.  Whitten,  Pomology. 
fFRANK  Adams,  Irrigation  Investigations. 

C.  L.  Roadhouse,  Dairy  Industry. 
R.  L.  Adams,  Farm  Management. 

W.  B.  Herms,  Entomology  and  Parasitology. 

F.  L.  Griffin,  Agricultural  Education. 
John  E.  Dougherty,  Poultry  Husbandry. 

D.  R.  Hoagland,  Plant  Nutrition. 

G.  H.  Hart,  Veterinary  Science. 

L.  J.  Fletcher,  Agricultural  Engineering. 
Edwin  C.  Voorhies,  Assistant  to  the  Dean. 


Division  of  Animal  Husbandry 

Gordon  H.  True  Edwin  C.  Voorhies 

Fritz  W.  Woll  Carroll  E.  Howell 

Robert  r.  Miller  James  P.  Wilson 

Elmer  EL  Eughes  Walter  E.  Tom  son 
"JOHN  I.  Thompson 

Resigned. 


HOG  FEEDING  EXPERIMENTS 

By  J.  I.  THOMPSON  and  EDWIN  C.  VOOEHIES 


The  importance  of  pork  production  as  a  phase  of  the  business  of 
the  California  rancher  is  likely  to  increase.  Large  ranches  are  grad- 
ually being  subdivided,  the  alfalfa  acreage  is  increasing,  and  more 
intensive  methods  are  coming  into  practice.  The  value  of  livestock 
as  a  part  of  general  or  specialized  farming  is  receiving  more  atten- 
tion each  year,  and  hog  raising  is  being  given  due  consideration.  The 
price  of  barley  generally  fluctuates  quite  independently  of  the  price 
of  hogs.  Barley  is  therefore  often  too  costly  to  yield  a  profit  when 
used  as  hog  food.  This  condition  compels  the  producers  to  try  one 
or  more  of  the  various  farm  or  factory  by-products  as  a  substitute 
for  all  or  part  of  the  barley,  and  accounts  for  the  great  variety  of 
feeds  found  in  various  hog  rations  fed  in  this  state.  It  is  doubtful  if 
there  is  any  other  part  of  this  country  where  hogs  can  be  utilized  so 
profitably  to  consume  farm  by-products. 

Alfalfa  has  no  equal  as  a  forage  crop  for  hogs  under  the  conditions 
obtaining  in  this  state  and  is  the  common  roughage  fed  here,  either 
as  pasture  or  green  feed,  or  as  hay.  Barley,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
the  standard  grain  fed  to  hogs.  Since  barley  is  often  high  in  price, 
it  is  important  that  definite  information  should  be  obtained  as  to  how 
barley  can  best  be  supplemented  for  most  economical  returns  in  hog 
feeding,  and  what  feeds,  if  any,  are  satisfactory  substitutes.  Pasture 
is  generally  available  in  this  state  throughout  the  year  except  for  the 
months  of  December,  January,  and  February.  Fall  pigs  marketed 
at  about  200  lbs.  to  225  lbs.  receive  most  of  their  finishing  in  dry 
lots.  Hence,  experiments  in  swine  feeding  conducted  by  the  Division 
of  Animal  Husbandry  during  the  past  six  years  have  been  carried  on 
along  the  two  lines  of  pasture  feeding  and  dry-lot  feeding.  The 
present  bulletin  contains  accounts  of  this  experimental  work,  and  is 
accordingly  divided  into  two  parts :  Part  I,  Pasture  Feeding,  from 
1914  to  1919,  inclusive,  and  Part  II,  Dry-Lot  Feeding,  1914  to  1919. 

The  specific  subjects  concerning  which  information  was  sought  in 
the  experiments  were  as  follows : 

1.  How  much  pork  can  be  produced  on  alfalfa  when  supplementary 
grain  is  fed? 

2.  How  much  barley  is  needed  in  conjunction  with  alfalfa  pasture 
to  produce  a  pound  of  pork  1 


374  UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION 

3.  What  are  the  relative  values  of  various  supplementary  hog 
feeds,  such  as  tankage,  wheat  shorts  (middlings),  coconut  meal,  beans, 
etc.? 

4.  Is  it  feasible  to  cut  alfalfa  and  feed  it  in  racks  instead  of  allow- 
ing the  hogs  to  graze  on  it? 

5.  Are  self  feeders  practicable  for  hogs? 

Animals  used. — All  of  the  pigs  used  were  pure-breds.  Each  lot 
contained  the  same  number  of  animals  and  these  were  equally  divided 
as  far  as  possible  in  regard  to  breed,  sex,  weight,  and  vigor.  The 
following  breeds  were  used :  Berkshire,  Chester- White,  Poland-China, 
Hampshire,  and  Yorkshire. 

Weighings. — All  pigs  were  weighed  separately  on  the  second  day 
of  the  experiments,  and  collectively  for  the  first  two  days.  The  aver- 
age of  these  weights  is  taken  as  the  initial  weight.  They  were  further 
weighed  collectively  each  two  weeks  during  the  experiments.  On 
each  of  the  last  two  or  three  days  they  were  weighed  collectively  and 
individually,  and  the  average  of  these  last  weighings  used  as  the  final 
weight.  All  experiments  began  with  the  evening  feeding  on  the  first 
day  and  ended  with  the  morning  feeding  on  the  last  day. 

Feeding. — All  lots  fed  by  hand  received  their  daily  feed  in  two 
equal  parts  at  regular  hours  in  the  morning  and  evening.  All  grain 
rations  were  soaked  from  one  feeding  to  the  next,  except  those  in  the 
self-feeders  and  the  milo  fed  in  Trials  III  and  IV,  which  were  fed 
dry.  The  beans  were  cooked  in  an  open  kettle,  a  little  salt  being  used. 
All  proportions  given  are  by  weight.    Water  was  freely  supplied. 

Feeds  used. — The  barley  used  was  home-grown,  of  average  quality, 
and  was  nearly  always  rolled.  When  it  was  impossible  to  get  it 
rolled,  a  small  amount  was  ground.  The  wheat  shorts,  so-called, 
were  meant  to  be  choice  "white  middlings,"  but  varied  considerably 
in  quality  and  in  per  cent  of  flour.  The  tankage  was  digester  tank- 
age, supposed  to  contain  50  per  cent  total  protein.  The  coconut  meal 
was  guaranteed  to  contain  about  21  per  cent  of  protein,  40  per  cent 
of  Nitrogen-free  extract,  and  8V4  per  cent  of  fat. 


PART  I 

TRIAL  I. — The  Value  of  Supplementary  Feeds  in  Conjunction  with 
Alfalfa  Pasture  for  Pork  Production 

Forty-four  spring  pigs,  about  four  and  one-half  months  old  and 
weighing  about  ninety-five  pounds  each  at  the  beginning  of  the 
experiment,  were  selected  and  separated  into  two  lots  of  twenty-two 
each,  and  fed  as  follows : 

Lot  I.     Rolled  barley,  alfalfa  pasture. 

Lot  II.     Rolled  barley,  alfalfa  pasture,  and  tankage. 

It  was  necessary  to  feed  wheat  shorts  to  Lot  II  in  this  experiment 
for  two  weeks  time,  because  the  shipment  of  tankage  failed  to  arrive. 

Each  of  these  lots  was  placed  in  a  half -acre  alfalfa  pasture  and 
allowed  all  the  grain  or  grain  and  tankage  from  self-feeders  that  they 
could  consume. 

The  results  are  shown  in  Table  I. 

The  only  advantage  from  feeding  tankage  shown  in  this  experi- 
ment was  in  the  last  forty  days  after  the  pasture  became  poor,  and 
in  the  increased  finish.  So  long  as  the  alfalfa  was  abundant  and  fine, 
there  was  apparently  no  need  of  additional  protein.  The  increased 
finish  secured  on  Lot  II,  however,  more  than  paid  for  the  extra  cost 
of  the  tankage. 

TEIAL  II. — Pork  Production  with  Concentrates  and  Alfalfa  Pasture 

Ninety-six  spring  pigs  averaging  four  months  of  age  and  weighing 
on  the  average  about  seventy-two  lbs.  each  at  the  beginning  of  the 
experiment,  were  selected  and  separated  into  eight  lots  of  twelve  pigs 
each,  that  were  fed  as  follows : 

Lot  I.     In  dry  corral.    Soaked  rolled  barley  only. 

Lot  II.     Alfalfa  pasture.     Soaked  rolled  barley. 

Lot  III.     Alfalfa  pasture.     Rolled  barley  in  self  feeder. 

Lot  IV.  Alfalfa  pasture.  Rolled  barley  and  tankage  in  self 
•feeders. 

Lot  V.  In  dry  corral.  The  same  amount  of  soaked  rolled  barley 
as  Lot  II,  with  green  alfalfa  cut,  weighed,  and  fed  in  racks  twice 
daily. 

Lot  VI.  Alfalfa  pasture.  Same  amount  of  concentrates  as  Lot 
II,  but  consisting  of  soaked  rolled  barley  two  parts,  and  wheat  shorts 
(middlings)  one  part. 


376  UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION 


>>o3  >>o3  <»^ 

-a  8  g  ^  3      ^   o3^£        ^^-^    o3"£ 
t^h    o3  ^   •        •   o3 

cd       03  hf) 
co  c3^  B  ft      111  iO 

03         O  a 
o 


^3  in  ^ 


^  ^"~ga  3  3 


O 


tH 


Tti 


00  ^  0)             bfi      (^                       O 

0  os  B^fl'ft    co               ^ 

H  -  i-3  £-d  M03     ^ 

S  OS                  OS 

£o  °  -1 

W  ^r  OS 

<|             H  ^  +»        i-H                            LO                                    *H 

H       ^  3  j§||     g                «                     g 

M  to  ►"^  g      <N                   <N                          <h 

It1  r^ 


I 


w  -9 

<i     +=  3 

H      o  .-.»*>  I 


~    3        3«  g; s   os           os  £ 

>-"                           i   i          -  -  ^ 

<N                                                  g              o3  ITS  g 

*  of         J  a  ^ 

~  fa  C 

^  -2      -d  ^  ° 

•  2       p  Oh             o  *+*  ^O  * 

■*"          *-i                              sL  —3     CD  „i 

<s  j-        ~   o3   2  g 

Q3            -     -  CD                        <+-<  3 

a?  ^3  5         cd  -£  SH  g 

73  o3  cd     t;5?  c2 

PQ                   «  I. 
u 

o             a  = 


a 


Bulletin  342]  HOG  FEEDING  EXPERIMENTS  377 

Lot  VII.  Alfalfa  pasture.  Same  amount  of  concentrates  as  Lot 
II,  but  consisting*  of  soaked  rolled  barley  two  parts,  coconut  meal  one 
part. 

Lot  VIII.  Alfalfa  pasture.  Same  amount  of  concentrates  as 
Lot  II,  but  consisting  of  soaked  rolled  barley  two  parts,  cull  beans 
one  part. 

The  pasture  lots  were  one-half  acre  in  size.  It  was  not  intended 
to  cook  the  beans,  because  the  average  ranch  is  not  equipped  to  do  so. 
However,  since  the  pigs  refused  to  eat  them,  cooking  was  necessary. 
A  little  salt  was  added  to  the  beans. 

The  results  obtained  in  the  trial  are  shown  in  Table  II. 

Lot  I  ate  the  most  grain  for  a  pound  of  gain.  Lots  II,  V,  VI,  VII, 
and  VIII,  did  not  eat  nearly  so  much  a  day  or  during  the  feeding 
period  as  did  Lots  III  and  IV  on  the  self  feeders,  but  all  required 
about  the  same  amount  for  a  pound  of  gain,  except  Lot  VII,  which 
was  slightly  below  the  others.  Since  it  was  deemed  necessary  to 
market  all  of  the  hogs  at  one  time,  this  comparison  is  hardly  fair 
to  Lots  III  and  IV,  as  they  were  much  heavier  than  the  other  lots. 
They  required  less  feed  for  each  pound  of  gain  up  to  the  same  weights 
finally  reached  by  the  other  hogs.  The  only  advantage  economically 
of  the  tankage  in  Lot  IV  seems  to  have  been  that  it  enabled  the  pigs 
to  eat  more  grain,  hence  reach  a  heavier  weight  in  less  time  than  those 
not  receiving  it.  They  showed  more  finish  and  dressed  higher,  which 
caused  them  to  sell  higher. 

Lot  V  required  as  much  grain  for  each  pound  of  gain  as  Lot  II, 
but  there  was  a  slight  saving  in  alfalfa  area.  However,  these  pigs 
lacked  finish,  dressed  very  low  and  sold  low.  The  labor  cost  was 
necessarily  high.     . 

Lot  VI  showed  fairly  desirable  gains,  the  only  question  being  the 
ability  to  buy  shorts  at  a  reasonable  price. 

Lot  VII  proved  to  be  most  economical  in  food  consumption,  but 
one  part  of  coconut  meal  to  two  of  barley  proved  to  be  too  laxative 
when  fed  in  conjunction  with  alfalfa  pasture. 

In  the  proportion  fed  in  Lot  VIII,  beans  produced  fair  gains,  but 
the  product  from  the  packers'  viewpoint  was  anything  but  desirable. 
The  dressing  percentage  was  unusually  low  (63.8  per  cent),  and  the 
carcasses  very  soft,  flabby  and  watery. 


378 


UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION 


M 

B      ■ 

M  <B  0  bfl 

a)  a  $>  cs 

(1        v 


3  Mo^  fl-g 
n  •  r*  S       c/)  3 


x> 


id 

CD 

o 
o 


M 


<N 

CM 

10 

OS 

1—1 

CM 

N; 

GO 

00 
CO 

0 
00 

CM* 

00 

CO 

CO 

CO* 
CO 

0 

0 

0 

CD 

0 
\^1 

iO 

CO 

CO 

t^ 

iO 

CO 

CO 

to 

CO 
CM 

iO 

(35 

CO 

CO 


T3 
P 
o3 

CO 

CO 

CO 
05 

CM 


t3 
P 
o3 


03 

P 

CO  +3 

UZ.    CO 

05  o3 


GO 


CD 


CD  co 

b£  o3 
o3   ft 


03    ~:    03    ~    03  ^ 

ft  CO   ft  CO  rQ 


03 


CO 
00 


o3°? 


>>  CO 

CD    -(-5 

"3    ° 
o3    rj 


hj   o3   CO*  ^2  ^ 


05 

q 
10 


CO 
tO* 


35 


a?  GO 

o3  CO 
-O 


o3 

P 

CD 
CD 
Jh 

bfi 

o3 

<j-h    C35 

rP   CM 

o3 


CD 

P 

+^ 

CO 

c3 
ft 


10  CM^ 
CM  t— 1    o3 


o3 

.      CD  CD  .  CD 

£?  P  ?3  ^  (72  ^ 

53  0  co  53  $  co 

-°-  o  ft-0-0  a 

GC  CM  -T-J  35  rH  _j 

COrH  g  t^cM  g 

:  o3  CN  i-I  o3 


CM* 


05 
CM* 


CM* 


co 
W 

H 
o 


T3 
2  M 


CO 

1* 

<j 

P 

t— 1 

HH 

1— 1 

00 

H 

H^ 

H* 

eq 

O 

< 

>A 

H 

w 

0 

«« 

W 

10 
1— I 

<35 


(M 
CM 

fi 

CD 
rO 

O 
-4-3 

O 

O 
1 

o 

CO 


P 

>-3 


~h  '     „  *>  M 

d   -AS  S'S 


oi;  o  j  -■ 
tL^  C  ^  « 


rQ      rH  Hh  '3      OJ  -rH 

j  »  s  S  fl  ft 


CO 

o 

t-l 

Ph 

CM 


■  ^  CI 
-P  ft  ■£  ?8. 


bD 


J|fS» 


Mrs  ? 

ie-Sf 


a 

(S 


O 


CO 

0 

T— I 

CO 


o 


05 


GO 

CO* 

CO 


GO 


i 


CD 

03 


T3 

CD 

"o 


CO 
CM 


05 


GO 

CO* 
CO 


o 
^1 


CM 

CO 


o3 
& 

o3 
CD 

"o 


-a 

■as 

o 


CM 


GO 
CM 


CO 

GO* 

O 


CM 

CO* 
GO 


CO 


CD 
T3 

CD 
CD 


CD 
VI 

CD 

CD  +3 
T*    CO 


o 

CD    r/j 

^    03 

03    Oh 

O 


CO 

T— I 

GO 


<35 
CO 


lO 

CO* 


CO 

o 


GO 
CO 


o3 

CD    ft 
Qi3 

2  3 

03  «*_i 


03 

J2 


CD    CO 

03  Sh    CD 

ft  tj'd 

^  ^    CD 

S  _CD 


^3 

o  « 


CD^H    £3 
^    CD    ^ 


O    CD  CO 
lO*  T3  i-H 

CO   o3  O 

cm^:  co 


CM 


GO 

d 

CO 


CO 

CO* 
CO 


CD 
CD 
5-t 

bD 


4^> 

CD 

H-3 
^^ 

CD 

*■""""!  b 

o3 

M-H 
^^ 

CD  <4_i 


o3 

i3    CO 
o3    CM 


^ 
t^ 


CM 

CM* 

CO 


(35 

CO* 
CO 


GO 
Tt* 


CQ    03 
^^ 

O   o3 
co   o3 

sh-t! 

03    CD 
Oh5-" 

^  — ' 

o3 


lO 

CO 
CM 


O 
GO 


CM 


CO 


cd  .a 


t3 

CD 


GO 

CM* 

CO 
CM 


LO 


CM 

CO 


GO* 

CO 


>o 
1> 


373 
CD    CD 


CO 

H-3 

c3 

Ph 

<M  , 

*>» 

CD. 

1 — 1 

(h 

o3 
^3 


p    CD 

o3  P 

03 

H     Ph 

o3 
03  73 

CD    03 

«+H 


fH      P 

03     03 

Ph^3 


2 


73 

CD 


P3 


03 


O 

P3 


•I; 

03     , — 1 

ft-o 


rH      IJ         ^ 


CJ 


CD 

+3      rH 

.  rH      p 

r*"J    03    H-J 

CD    Q,  CO 

T3       <$ 

03H    ft 
-°    "eg 

aPi 
$£ 

rQ       03 


CI 


73 

CD 


O' 

Ph 


Bulletin  342]  H0G  FEEDING  EXPERIMENTS  379 


CD 

t>-  CO 

00 

i—i 

00 

t^ 

CO 

o 

i—i 

CO    fl 

CO   a) 
CD    o 

r>.' ! 

co 

os 

oi 

00 

oo 

d 

d 

CO 

t^r^ 

t- 

t^ 

r^ 

i> 

00 

00 

oo 

Jr1    '-' 

M  a 

00 
s- 
O 

oo 
Fh 

CD 

— 

43 

O 
F- 

C 

fail 

thH    < 

H-H 

•-.CD 
— ■  '  t-i 

io  o 

tO 

lO 

iO 

iO 

IO 

>o 

»o 

i>  q 

OS 

OS 

C5 

en 

o 

o 

CO 

CD    Q. 

od  od 

oo 

GO 

od 

00 

OS 

OS 

OS 

13 

03 

CD 

CD 

03 

03 

03 

H 

- 

Fh 

Fh 

CD   h 

03    cQ 

13 

- 

r. 
o9 

ft 

-d 

3 

+3 
X 

S3 

CD 

CD 
H 

9 

X 

CD 
U 
B3 

X 

43 

Fh 
O 

3 

43 

X 

o3 

ft 

43 

d 
c 

o 
o 

d 

CO 

o3 

-3 
2,2  22 

d 

- 

! 

o3 

c3 
^2 

aa 

43 

CD 

o3 

03 

X 

S3 

O 

o 
o 

o3 

S  ^^ 

u  .  g 

OS 

© 

r 

iO 

j3 

CO 



-t 

O' 

s3 

C 

r^ 

o 

s3 

cr 

Tt 

o 

Th 
s3 

O 

c3 

o  _.  13 

&£'* 

OS 

<N 

d 

"*.! 

^~ 

TtH 

d 

^H 

CO 

CO 

t+H 

iq 

»o 

•-t-> 

CO 

i— i 

■-+-< 

O  1— ;  «+h 

o 

to 

id' 

- 

r^' 

3a 

TJH 

oa 

io',o 

i-H 

33 

CO-O 

^H 

la 

CO-O 

^H 

c3 

rtH        "^ 

CD 

>, 

S3 

<< 

Q 

CO 

o 

OS 

i—i 

i— 1 

6' 

_c, 

^H 

1—1 

r^ 

CO 

t*  ■—    CD 
CD    03   CD 

s3 

CO 

tO 

to 

iO 

'-4-I 

13 

CO 

co' 

oo 

to 

CO 
CO 

00 

CD 

CD 

CD 

03 

03 

CD 

OS 

;- 

Fh 

;- 

Fh 

Fh 

Fh 

'3 

3 

0 

s 

3 

d 

Q 

X 

-(-3 
X 

CO 

43 
X 

43 

cc 

43 

H 

CO 

-d 

aa 

-d 

03 

13 

oa 

a3 

o3 

c3 

m 
< 

l— 1 

d 

ft 

fl 

ft 

a 

ft 

~ 

ft 

a 

OS 

i— 1 

-a 

o3 

aa 

ca 

c3 

oa 

o3 

>% 

a3 

o3 

03 

oa 

A 

CD 

3   O    bfl 
co  Q/?£ 

CO 

O 

H-j 

o 

e« 

°. 

r^ 

CD 

iO 

e*H 

TtH 

b*h 

o 

e+H 

CO^j 

t— 1 
t— 1 

1— ( 

00 

00 

CO 

oa 

o 

CO 

o3 

S: 

oa 

E4H 

00 

o3  io 

5a 

00 
1—1 

e3 

CH 

to 

00 

--t-i 

h-H 

Fh 

o 

tO 

tO 

oa 

to 

It 

>o 

"3 

tO-Q 

1— 1 

ol 

CO 

13 

to 

03 

O    °3 

w 

H 

O 

J 

O 

o 

ffl 

H 

co   e3^? 

■Sfew 
6&S 

r«5 

-H 

CM 

iO 

i—i 

CO 

r^ 

•* 

<3 

O 

O 
i 

jus 
C3 

OS 

1—1 

i-H 

OJ 

i— i 

Ol 

1—1 

o 

1—1 

CO 

1—1 

00 

i—i 

LO 
i— I 

H 

i—i 

< 

CD 

.   bC— 

co  cj  c3 

CO 

1— 1 

i— i 

Oi 
CO 

I- 

00 

CO 

o 

CO 

1—1 

z 

<3 

OS 

1—1 

i— i 

Ol 

OS 

Ol 

00 

tO 

M 

1— I 

i— i 

1— 1 

1— I 

1— 1 

1—1 

02 

© 

CO 

.a 

1^ 

CO 

CO 
CO 

o 
o 

CO 

00 

o 

cd 

CO 

o 

*3H 

i— t 

Hi 

average        ave 

initial            fii 

weight         we 

OS 

1—1 
Oj 

ci 

o 
i— i 

>> 

CD 

i— i 
CO 

© 

1— 1 

o 

1—1 

CD 

00 
00 

a 

o 
o 

1—1 

S-, 
CD 

-d 

CD 

CD 

ten 

CO 
CO 

00 

o 

o 

1—1 
CD 

oi 
M 

o 

Ol 

1— 1 

ci 

o 

1— 1 

>> 

CD 

o3 

S3 
33 
03 
Fh 
ciO 
43 

3 

CO 
CO 

CO 
CO 

o 

1— 1 

CO 
CO 

CO 

CO 

o 

1— 1 

tO 
CO 

00 
CO 

o 

1— 1 

CO 
Fh 
CD 

CD?, 

a 

'■+3 
S3 

T-1 
o3 

CD 

"o 

Fh 

-d 

CD 

o3 

O 

3 

in 
Fh 

o 
o 

Q 

T3 

c3 

-O 

-d 

CD 

»— ■ i 

'o 
-d 

CD 

M 

o3 
O 

03 
U 

+3 

on 

oa 

aa 
la 

'o 

C/3 
1 

>J 

CD 

T^ 
c3 

-d 

CD 

CD 

in 

a 

X 
93 

a, 

o3 

a 

CD 

Si 

-d 

CD 

"o 

Fh 

CD 

-d 

03 

O 

X 

CD 

3 

X 

o3 

|M 

It 
ttH 

13 

-d 

CD 

o 

Oi 

-d 

CD 

"o 

Fh 
Fh 
0 

CJ 

>. 
u 

n 

CO 
CO 

CD 

T^ 

o3 

-d 

CD 

'o 

r-H 

X 
43 

Fh 

0 

J= 

CQ 
43 

o3 
03 

03 

3 

43 
X 

03 

33 

«H 

It 

1 

CO 

CD 
Th 

ca 

CD 

'o 

Coconut  meal  1 
alfalfa  pasture 

round  milo  maiz 
Tankage-self  fe< 
Alfalfa  pasture 

& 

tf 

P^ 

a4 

ti 

O 

l-H 

i— i 

0 

h-1 

i— i 

h— 1 

> 

> 

I—I 

> 

1— ( 
> 

l-H 
> 

380  UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION 


TRIAL  IIa. — Continuation  of  Trial  II 

The  only  difference  between  this  trial  and  the  previous  one,  is  in 
Lots  VI,  VII,  and  VIII.  In  Lot  VI  the  proportion  of  barley  to  shorts 
was  started  at  two  to  one,  as  before,  but  gradually  widened  to  three 
to  one  as  the  experiment  progressed.  On  account  of  the  trouble  with 
scouring  experienced  in  the  previous  trial,  Lot  VII  of  this  bunch  was 
started  on  barley  three  parts,  coconut  meal  one  part,  and  gradually 
widened  to  four  to  one.  Lot  VIII  was  entirely  different,  ground  milo 
maize  and  tankage  being  fed  in  Separate  self  feeders,  instead  of  barley 
and  beans  as  in  the  previous  one.  The  pasture  lots  were  the  same, 
one-half  acre  each. 

The  results  are  shown  in  Table  III. 

The  pigs  in  this  experiment  were  heavier  at  the  finish,  so  that 
more  feed  was  required  for  each  pound  of  gain  than  in  the  previous 
one.  Other  than  this,  the  only  irregularity  is  that  Lot  IV  did  not 
show  nearly  so  favorably  in  dressing  percentage  and  did  not  make 
relatively  so  large  gains  as  pigs  similarly  fed  in  previous  years. 

The  showing  of  Lot  VIII  on  milo  maize  is  especially  interesting, 
but  should  not  be  considered  final.  Further  tests  on  this  feed  are 
to  be  made  as  soon  as  possible. 

TRIAL  III. — To  Determine  the  Relative  Economy  of  a  Limited  Compared 
with  a  Heavy  Grain  Ration  in  Conjunction  with  Alfalfa  Pasture 

As  before  stated,  grain  is  often  relatively  much  higher  in  price 
in  California,  when  compared  with  the  price  of  hogs.  At  such  times 
it  is  important  to  know  whether  the  concentrated  part  of  the  ration 
may  be  limited,  thereby  forcing  the  pigs  to  eat  relatively  more  alfalfa. 
It  is  conceded  that  the  gains  will  be  less  rapid.  How  limited  a  grain 
ration  can  be  profitably  fed  is  the  question. 

In  order  to  acquire  some  data  on  this  question,  five  lots  of  ten 
pigs  each  were  fed  as  follows,  each  lot  being  allowed  one-half  acre  of 
alfalfa  pasture. 

Lot  I.  One  pound  rolled  barley  daily  for  each  100  lbs.  of  live 
weight. 

Lot  II.  Two  pounds  rolled  barley  daily  for  each  100  lbs.  live 
weight. 

Lot  III.  Three  pounds  rolled  barley  daily  for  each  100  lbs.  live 
weight. 

Lot  IV.     Barley  in  self  feeder. 

Lot  V.     Barley  and  coconul  meal  in  separate  self  feeders. 


Bulletin  342] 


HOG  FEEDING   EXPERIMENTS 


381 


On  November  23,  1917,  the  results  were  as  follows 


TABLE  IV 
July  11-November  23,  1917,  135  Days 


Lot 
I* 
II 
III 

IV* 


Ration 

1%  ground  barley 

2%  ground  barley 61 

3%  ground  barley 61 

Full  feed,  ground  barley 

(self  feeder) 59 

Full  feed,  ground  barley  & 
coconut  meal  (separate 
self  feeders) 60 


Ave. 

initial 

weight 

lbs. 

Ave. 
final 

weight 
lbs. 

Ave. 
daily 
gain 
lbs. 

Average 
daily 
feed 
lbs. 

Feed 

consumed 

for  100  lbs 

gain 

60 

103 

.34 

.79 

230 

61 

138 

.57 

1.80 

317 

61 

174 

.83 

3.18 

382 

213       1.14 


223       1.21 


*Nine  pigs — one  pig  in  each  of  these  lots  died. 


5.49 

[5.46 
{  barley 
.15 

coconut 

meal 

5.61 


480 

(450 

\  barley 
13 
coconut 
meal 


463 


It  will  be  noted  that  there  was  a  wide  variation  in  the  average 
weights  of  these  lots  at  the  close  of  the  feeding  period  of  135  days, 
when  Lot  V  was  ready  for  market.  It  was  decided  to  continue  feed- 
ing all  of  the  other  lots  in  dry  corrals  until  each  lot  had  reached  an 
average  weight  of  223  lbs.  Since  Lot  IV  had  only  ten  pounds  per 
pig  to  gain,  the  ration  was  not  changed.  The  other  lots  were  fed  barley 
and  cocoanut  meal. 

It  required  seven  more  days  for  Lot  IV  to  reach  this  weight,  the 
feed  consumed  for  100  lbs.  gain  remaining  the  same,  namely,  480  lbs. 

Twenty-eight  additional  days  were  required  for  Lot  III  to  reach 
223  lbs.,  the  average  feed  for  100  lbs.  gain  being  for  the  entire  period 
404  lbs.  barley  and  .05  lb.  coconut  meal.  Forty-five  days  more  were 
required  for  Lot  II,  the  feed  for  100  lbs.  gain  being  409  lbs.  barley 
and  .06  lb.  coconut  meal  for  the  entire  period. 

It  was  impossible  to  estimate  accurately  the  relative  amount  of 
pasture  needed  by  these  various  lots,  but  it  was  very  evident  that 
Lots  I  and  II  needed  more  area,  and  Lot  III  consumed  relatively 
more  of  their  pasture  than  did  Lots  IV  and  V.  In  fact,  the  areas 
allotted  to  IV  and  V  could  readily  have  carried  twice  as  many  pigs. 
Lot  III  was  about  balanced,  Lot  II  needed  some  more,  and  Lot  I  about 
twice  as  much.  The  grain  consumed  for  100  lbs.  gain  increased 
directly  with  the  amount  of  grain  allowed  for  the  first  period,  but 
there  was  little  difference  in  the  amount  required  by  the  time  they 
were  ready  for  market. 


382 


UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION 


The  question  that  the  individual  hog  raiser  will  need  to  decide  for 
himself  is  when  the  price  of  grain  is  sufficiently  high  to  justify  the 
additional  risk,  labor,  and  interest  in  investment  incurred  when  much 
additional  time  is  required  to  get  the  hogs  ready  for  market.  The 
indications  are  that  at  least  a  3  per  cent  grain  ration  is  desirable  for 
economical  gains.  Ground  barley  and  coconut  meal  in  self  feeders 
was  found  more  economical  than  ground  barley  fed  alone. 


Summary  of  Trials.     Part  I 
TABLE  V 

Number     Average 

of  daily 

Kinds  of  Feed                                                                          trials  gain,  lbs. 

Barley,  dry  corral 2  .82 

Barley  and  alfalfa  pasture 2  .96 

Barley  in  self-feeder  alfalfa  pasture 3  1 .27 

Barley,  tankage,  self-feeders,  alfalfa  pasture      3  1.34 

Barley,  dry  lot,  cut  green  alfalfa 2  .91 

Barley,  shorts,  alfalfa  pasture 2  1.00 

Barley,  coconut  msal,  alfalfa  pasture 3  1.03 


Average  feed 
consumed 

per  lb. 
gain.  lbs. 

5.63 

4.48  and  alfalfa  pasture 
4.31  and  alfalfa  pasture 
4.21  barley 
.18  tankage  and 
alfalfa  pasture 
4.73  barley 
3.27  alfalfa 

3.01  barley 
1.37  shorts  and 

alfalfa  pasture 
2.99  barley 
1.11  coconut  meal 

and  alfalfa  pasture 


If  greater  gains  are  made  from  a  given  amount  of  barley  and 
alfalfa  pasture  than  from  the  same  amount  of  barley  fed  in  a  dry 
lot,  the  difference  should  be  credited  to  the  alfalfa,  When  lots  so 
fed  are  compared  from  the  above  table,  it  will  be  found  that  pigs  on 
alfalfa  pasture  gained  .14  lb.  more  rapidly  per  day,  and  that  1.15 
lbs.  less  of  barley  were  used  to  make  a  pound  of  gain.  The  greater 
gain  per  day  and  the  less  feed  consumed  per  pound  of  gain  should 
be  credited  to  the  alfalfa. 

The  self  feeder  lots  show  even  greater  gains  and  more  saving  in 
feed. 

Approximately  4%  lbs.  of  barley  were  required  for  each  pound 
of  gain  to  grow  pigs  from  75  lbs.  up  to  200  lbs.  when  they  were  hand 
fed.  Approximately  4  per  cent  less  barley  was  required  for  each 
pound  of  gain  between  75  lbs.  and  200  lbs.  weight  when  hogs  had 
access  to  self  feeders. 

As  much  barley  and  tankage  were  required  for  each  pound  of  gain 
as  of  barley  alone,  but  the  extra  finish  of  those  fed  tankage  produced, 
on  the  average,  a  slightly  greater  profit. 


Bulletin  342]  HOg  feeding  experiments  383 

The  soiling  system  seems  to  produce  gains  about  5  per  cent  more 
costly  in  grain  than  when  pasture  is  used. 

Unless  shorts  (middlings)  are  of  good  or  excellent  quality,  they 
are  worth  no  more  per  pound  than  barley  for  pigs  weighing  75  lbs. 
or  more  when  being  fed  for  market,  so  long  as  good  alfalfa  pasture 
is  available.  However,  the  pigs  fed  barley  and  shorts  were  slightly 
trimmer  in  the  paunch,  glossier  in  the  hair,  and  dressed  somewhat 
higher  than  those  fed  barley  without  shorts. 

GENERAL  CONCLUSIONS 

1.  Pigs  having  access  to  self  feeders  eat  more  grain  daily  on  the 
average  than  those  fed  by  hand. 

2.  Pigs  on  self  feeders  grow  evenly.  When  hand-fed,  the  larger 
pigs  usually  grow  relatively  faster  than  the  smaller. 

3.  Self  feeders  reduce  the  labor  cost,  and  make  it  possible  for  less 
feed  to  produce  a  pound  of  gain  than  is  true  of  hand  feeding. 

4.  Self-fed  pigs  gain  faster  than  hand-fed.  The  difference  in  the 
economy  of  the  two  systems  is  greater  than  is  apparent  in  the  figures 
given,  for,  owing  to  a  better  finish,  high  dressing  percentage  and 
greater  uniformity  they  sold  higher  in  all  cases  and  made  a  greater 
profit. 

5.  In  all  the  self  feeder  lots,  there  has  been  an  over-supply  of 
alfalfa  when  twelve  pigs  were  pastured  on  a  half-acre  field.  It  seemed 
that  these  lots  could  have  carried  50  per  cent  more  pigs,  or  eighteen 
to  the  lot,  as  efficiently  as  the  hand-fed  lots  carried  twelve  pigs. 

6.  Beans  produced  a  fair  rate  of  gain,  but  the  carcasses  were  soft, 
flabby,  and  watery,  and  the  dressing  percentage  very  low. 

7.  Coconut  meal  proved  to  be  a  desirable  supplement  for  barley, 
when  fed  in  the  proportion  of  one  pound  to  three  or  four  pounds  of 
barley.  A  larger  proportion  of  coconut  meal  exerted  too  laxative  an 
effect  when  fed  in  conjunction  with  alfalfa  pasture. 

8.  Coconut  meal  may  be  used  to  make  up  from  one-third  to  one- 
fourth  of  the  ration,  so  long  as  it  does  not  cost  over  20  per  cent  more 
than  barley.  According  to  the  results  of  this  single  experiment,  beans 
are  worth  only  40c  per  hundred  pounds  when  barley  is  worth  $1.25. 
and  coconut  meal  $1.50  per  hundred. 

9.  There  is  a  marked  difference  in  the  rate  of  gains  of  different 
individuals  in  the  same  lot.  Even  on  the  most  favorable  rations,  the 
rate  varies  from  60  per  cent  gain  on  the  original  weight  to  as  high 


384  UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION 

as  160  per  cent  gain  in  the  same  lot.  On  the  average,  the  self-feeder 
lots  show  the  most  uniformity,  simply  because  the  lighter  pigs  have 
just  as  good  a  chance  as  the  heavier  ones.  This  is  not  generally  true 
when  they  are  fed  in  a  trough. 

10.  The  cost  in  feed  of  each  pound  of  gain  increases  as  the  weight 
increases.  A  pig  should  weigh  from  200  lbs.  to  225  lbs.  to  command 
the  top  market  price.  Hence  it  is  usually  not  profitable  to  market 
them  much  lighter  than  this  weight. 


PART   II 

DRY-LOT  FEEDING 

There  has  been  no  opportunity  to  duplicate  several  of  the  tests 
carried  on  during  the  winter  months.  There  is  so  much  inquiry,  how- 
ever, concerning  the  rations  that  may  be  efficiently  used  when  pasture 
is  not  available,  that  it  seems  advisable  to  give  a  brief  summary  of 
the  main  dry-lot  feeding  trials  that  have  been  conducted.  Some  of 
these  not  yet  repeated  will  be  duplicated  as  soon  as  possible.  The 
results  given  here  are  only  suggestive  and  do  not  warrant  drawing 
general  conclusions. 

TRIAL  I. — The  Value  of  Alfalfa  in  Different  Forms  for  Pork  Production 

In  this  trial  four  lots  of  pigs,  ten  in  each  lot,  all  pure-breds,  weigh- 
ing about  78  lbs.  each,  were  used.  The  first  week  was  preliminary 
feeding  to  accustom  the  pigs  to  their  rations,  so  that  the  experiment 
proper  began  on  January  5  when  the  pigs  weighed  about  87  lbs.  each. 

They  were  fed  as  follows : 

Lot  I.     Soaked  rolled  barley. 

Lot  II.     Soaked  rolled  barley  and  whole  alfalfa  hay  in  racks. 

Lot  III.  Soaked  rolled  barley,  and  cut  alfalfa  hay  soaked  with 
the  barle}".  The  amount  of  hay  fed  was  the  same  as  was  put  into  the 
rack  for  Lot  II. 

Lot  IV.  Soaked  rolled  barley  and  alfalfa  meal  soaked  with  the 
barley.    Same  amount  of  meal  as  Lot  II  received  of  whole  hay. 

The  tabulated  results  are  given  in  Table  VI. 

Alfalfa  meal  was  the  most  efficient  in  this  test,  and  it  is  interesting 
to  note  that  only  4.1  lbs.  of  barley  were  required  for  each  pound  of 
gain,  although  the  pigs  weighed  157  lbs.  at  the  finish. 

The  long  hay  (Lot  II)  was  second  in  efficiency,  requiring  no  more 
barley  than  that  used  with  the  chopped-hay  lot,  and  40  per  cent  less 
alfalfa.  The  hay  for  Lot  II  is  the  amount  placed  in  the  rack,  not  the 
amount  actually  eaten.  The  pigs  wasted  some  of  it,  but  the  results 
indicate  that  it  is  more  economical  to  let  these  animals  waste  some 
hay  than  to  attempt  to  force  them  to  eat  all  of  the  coarse  material, 
as  was  done  in  Lot  III. 

The  ;'chopped-alfalfa"  lot  made  their  gains  more  economically 
than  did  the  lot  on  barley  alone,  but  did  not  gain  so  rapidly.  The  fact 
that  alfalfa  hay  and  alfalfa  meal  are  quite  bulky,  should  not  be  over- 
looked when  formulating  a  ration  for  growing  pigs. 


386 


UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION 


>> 

03 

43 

o3 

«-4-H 

"o3 

«+H              >"3 

03 

43 

"-H                 03 

c3          o 

t>>    >>,.03 

T3  T^  ,o3 

_CD  ox^^1 

M    O   Jh  ,o3 

rcTi  S  s-     .  (3 

o3    c323 

o3„£    o323 

J.2  g  »~  M 

,£2  ^    03^0^2   c3 
^lOOOMNOM 

O 

o 

HCOCOCOCOHCO 

co 

«< 
Q 

o 

© 

CO 


to 
43 

45 


O    C3    O    ga    (-t 


>T5 
03 


^  to   J* 
O   n 

o 


lo 

l— I 


> 

PG 


^ 

H 

o 

o3 

• 

Eh 

i 

O 

lO 

J 

►» 

a 

o3 

o 

2 

<5 

a 

W 

o3 

t-5 

£ 

►H 

CO 

o 

Ph 
o 


T3 

o 
o 


<o  o3  4?.R  (-;  bfi 

^  S  «8  S,  a  a 

eS 


o3 

43 

oj 

«4-H 

"o3 

«+H 

r^ 

o3 

"o3 

CD 

o3 
43       T3        tt 

a?  o  23  cd  ££  cd  23 
Th  Th  ,o3   Jh    o  Th  ,o3 

o3  o323  <^^d  ^^3 
,jO  ^2   o342   o^2   o3 

1>  CM  iO  00  C5  00  CM 

CDCOMOOOCO 


^  -* 


"tf 


T^ 


o3 

o3 


>> 

o3 
43 

1— 1 

o3 
73 

o3 

CD 

s 

CD    CD  23    CD    ££  CD  ^3 

"£  ^    c3  7h    oTh^ 

o3   o3  23   o3  ,13   o3  23 

40  42    o342   &  £l    o3 

CO  l>  «D  CO  iC  CO  CN 

N  CN  ^'  »C  H  iO  CO 
CO  CO         CN         CM 

H  CO 
CT>  OS 

00 

00 

OS 
OS 

01 

.     M  — 

co  c3  ?3 

I— I   >  -u 
e8 


CO  LO 
CD  CO 


LO 


CO 


CO 

OS 

CD 


rt 


j§  2-J3  w 


O)-; 


Oj 


T3 

a) 


O  CO        OJ 


O  C^l 

r-       t^ 

>o  >o 

■*#            LO 

1—1  1—1 

43 

CO  >o 

CO^  LO 

cd  l> 

O^N 

/   f 

00  «£    OOr-J 
r— 1                 03 

c3 
4^ 

03          <d 

X3         g 

CD 

'r*.    <■; 

o3 

^*>  O,  >>  <S 

CD     CD 

'+-H 

CD    p_  CD  23 

f~~i        r— 

Tl  ot  « 

i^        09 

'". 

rt43    rt25 

WPG 

^ 

PGOPQ^I 

o 
H 


Bulletin  342]  HOg  FEEDING  EXPERIMENTS  387 

TEIAL  II. — Eelative  Feeding  Value  of  Milo  in  Various  Forms 

In  this  trial,  three  lots  of  ten  pigs  each,  all  pure-bred,  were  used. 
Their  average  weight  was  about  88  lbs.  at  the  beginning  of  the  experi- 
ment. 

They  were  fed  as  follows : 

Lot  I.     Whole  milo  heads  and  tankage. 

Lot  II.     Threshed  milo  and  tankage. 

Lot  III.     Threshed,  ground  milo  and  tankage. 

The  milo  for  Lots  II  and  III  was  fed  dry  in  a  trough;  for  Lot  I 
on  a  clean  concrete  floor.     The  tankage  was  supplied  in  self  feeders. 

The  tabulated  results  are  shown  in  Table  VII. 

More  grain  was  required  for  each  pound  of  gain  than  was  expected, 
but  the  immaturity  of  the  grain  may  account  for  this.  Milo  might 
give  more  satisfactory  results  if  fed  in  conjunction  with  alfalfa  pas- 
ture, for  the  laxative  effect  of  the  latter  would  probably  offset  the 
constipating  tendency  of  the  milo. 

TEIAL  III. — On  the  Eelative  Feeding  Value  of  Milo  in  Different  Forms, 
and  Milo  versus  Barley  for  Fattening  Hogs 

This  project  was  planned  for  the  purpose  of  checking  the  results 
obtained  in  the  previous  trial  on  the  relative  feeding  value  of  milo 
in  various  forms,  and  also  to  secure  data  concerning  the  relative  value 
of  milo  and  barley  for  fattening  hogs. 

Five  lots  of  eight  pigs  each,  all  pure-breds,  were  used.  Their 
average  weight  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  was  about  95  lbs. 

The  tankage  was  self  fed,  and  the  grain  hand  fed  as  follows : 

Lot  I.     Whole  milo  heads. 

Lot  II.     Ground  milo  heads. 

Lot  III.     Soaked  milo  grain. 

Lot  IV.     Ground  milo  grain. 

Lot  V.     Ground  barlev. 

The  tabulated  results  are  shown  in  Table  VIII. 

Milo  in  various  forms  proved  to  be  only  about  80  per  cent  as 
efficient,  on  the  average,  as  barley  in  this  trial.  In  the  same  form, 
threshed  and  ground  as  fed  in  Lot  IV  it  was  slightly  more  efficient. 
Two  of  the  lots  required  about  the  same  amount  of  tankage  to  balance 
the  ration  as  with  barley,  but  Lots  I  and  II,  fed  milo  heads,  required 
twice  as  much  tankage.  Grinding  the  milo  instead  of  soaking  it 
affected  a  saving  of  11  per  cent  of  the  milo,  indicating  that  when 
milo  is  worth  lc  per  pound  or  more,  grinding  at  $2.00  per  ton  pays. 

Lots  I  and  IV  of  the  trial  are  comparable  with  Lots  I  and  II  of 
project  484  (Table  VII),  the  average  of  which  follows: 


388  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT  STATION 


©  B  c3  "a     c3  £     ^ 

e^a  »  -^  B   +=>  c^m 

.£  S  2  £-£  3  O  00  MH  CO   00 

8  g  a"  M  05  (N  OS  CO  00  r.  t 


.  ^        o  ^        o  ^ 


H- 1 

H 

CN 

> 

>* 

c3 

H 

i 

PQ 
^  - 

o 

CM 

H 

H 

h3 

>> 

c3 

P. 

1-5 

83 


ii 


-Q  <3'3  as  5  5s  -rH  »0  t>-   CO  O   (N  9 

^-gg  J«  ^<N  JN.  | 

»H                                                               O  iO  Th  "^  Ph 

Q    .  a 

^         gi'sife.s  a  §  %  j  "s  *  ^ 

0  k_         ^o«aa  „     -^       P  •*=  P  +=  a 

1  £          ^~g  ?-  <N  t^  o  ^  o  <J 

«>     2                  °  -*  "*'  eo  o  d  d  1 

<J^  rf    CO        iO    CO  CO    CO  +> 

I— '       OS  a)  ;£  c 

aj  7  >>.g  k  M  « 

^>^M  So            So  S  ^§ 

oar0 

SgoS0-*  d          d  oo                  +»« 


^      ^      2  -a 


Qj 


o3^o 


;    I— I 

O  3     *      oo  co  oo  -S  fe-fl 


SMI   *.       °-       S  sgs 

S       S       §  *§:§ 


2  «s-g  £        CO.  O  i  -SJ<  o 

oo    ft.     oo    „      os  o^  S 


^    as,      oo  Os  o^  3 

a    §      xi    c      -O    a    a,      ^^^ 


^3 


o 


BULLETIN   342]  .  H0G  FEEDING  EXPERIMENTS  389 


2  ji  2  i^  2  -^  2  ^  2  '^ 

„     T3              'o3     C  'o3  C  'o3     C  'o3  C  'o3     C 

S,      ^    •           *->     o3  *-  o3  *-■     o3  ^  o3  ^     cj 

aid-cS^c       b£  ,p  bC  -2  bC  -2  bC  -2  bfi^ 

•^aJoS^'g.'^OO  -tf  ^  0000  tO  iO  0*0 

oo  -^  -*  lo  oo  i— i  co  oa  to  m 

id  *d  id  *d  tjh 


c3        O 


_,  .2  ^  .2  -^  .2  ^  .2  -^3  .2  ^ 

a>           ew  *     C  o3     G  o3     C  o3     fl  o3     G 

jg  gi?"a  K  a  bC  -2  bfi  +2  bC  +=  bC  -12  bC  42 

hJ?^<S2a3  oooo  co  as  t^oo  co  *o  oOt-h 

Ja         §a  »o  co  °?  ^  °°.  ^1  ^  ^  t^  co 


ffl    q   ^ 


o 


rfi  ■"*  iO  iO  iO 


CO 
>< 

Q  "S    .2  ^  '3  ^  .2  ■*  .2  M  .2  ^ 

C  S5«3       K    d  bfi    c3         ^     o3  t-oj  s-c     o3 

O^  SoaJffl       MiJ  „      -S         bfi  +->  bfi  42  bfi  42 

i-t  3      000  00  0*0  100  100 

5      2  ur|i^  Nh  iotd  did  MH 

P  COO'^OOi'fOOOiMiO 

*     ,-r  r^coocoO'-H(M(MOiM 

a^£  ft          co  co  t*  ■<*  rj< 

&j      >>  felS'S     co  *o  o  c<i  r- 

^        o3  >t)  M     00  O  OS  O  iO 

^  c3               l>-  O  O  O  Ol 


<  J    b 

op  SIS    £  3  £  §  § 


CO    S3    fl 

H        «        o3  ^o"3 


<       ^  CO  l>-  b-  00  o 


j2  a.s    ^h  o  oo  oo  oi 


2  ^*  >      O  00  CO  CO 

PL, 

oo 


i      uj  <^j  yv 

*       CO  ^t  iO 


iO  b- 


—  *-  co 

•  c3X  T3 

h-J'S'5      -^  *0                i-i                CO                CO              Xi 

•-  ?      CO  CO              l>-              cO              Ocor- 

^  ft     *-    ft     ^    a>      t-    03      r-    m    .S 


bC  bC 

o3         O     o3 


bfi        0     bfi  o3 


fl     c3         »     08         fa     3 


cS 


+3 

"43     i2  M        2    »        ®    j. 

«     o  -o      2  ^     -^  .2 

<A      XI     o3         £     o3         c3     3 
>     cu        J5     CJ         O     u 

t>   X        OX        CO     M 


H        I— (  t-H  »— I  l-H  K* 


"^ 

^ 

c 

cS 

2 

a 

o3 

o3 

CO 

T3 

•+J 

T3 

^ 

— 
O 

G 

^ 

d 

>> 

t*-. 

3 

_d 

B 

CU 

to 

O 

o 

'3 

bC 

o 

S-H 

o 

o3 

O 

o 

390 


UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION 


_q  03  3h'2 


oS 


r^ 


CO 


o 


CD     >-> 


CD 


IN    CO         00    O 


CD    CO 
CO    (N 


X 

PQ 


-d 

03 

d. 

03 

s 

Bg 

&JD  P 

61 

CI 

<x 

oo 

t- 

io 

— 

o3 

rt 

r£j 

© 

CO 

Oi 

^ 

oo 

01 

> 

o 

so 

■* 

>* 

< 

03 

03 
ft 

03 

C6.5 

'r1  os 

£   'CJO  CO 

Oi 

tH 

00 

CO 

.  IS 

iH 

cc   e3 

^rg 

J 

#2 


.  03    <M 


Ol 


co 


X 


13 
Oj 
V 

ft 


05 
CD 


a? 


3 
o 


03 

OX) 
03 


o 


*  2  c   S 


03 

CO     ^ 

O-    r*l 


c3 


CD 

I— I 

aj 

Pi 
O 


CD 

bX 

a 

as 
H 


co 

Q 

00 

CO 


a 

CO 

H 

CO 

W 


Eh 

O 

KH 

w 

o 


CO 

a 
Pm 

CD 


03 

g  03  bj) 

>IS  03    £.  " 

03    C3  13    oj  !-; 


^3 
h-H 


r- 1    CD 

T}H     (N 


03         ^ 

-  9>tS  3 


03         ^ 


i  • — '  ^ 


03 

Jo  2-43.M 

03   ^   ? 


CD 


n-< 

c3   rf 

03 

03 

Ph 

^  a 

3  £ 

+j 

i 

o 

K- 

i-l 

t— 1 

CD      P^ 

CD 


C3      t— I 

(N    CO 


^ 

>j 

CD 

1 

CD 

>> 

r^ 

aj  oS'd  S'S. 

^3 

7^ 

CD 

i—i 

OS 

1 1 

1    O    0)    a;    h 
1— 1  +J  «<-i    ?4    03 

O    & 

d 

(N* 

r-1 

C3 

r^ 

^w 

C5 

r^ 

of 

LO 

1^. 

i— i 

LC 

r-H 

OQ 

>. 

OS 

03 

bs.  av 

daily 

gain 

per 

pig 

00 

T— t 

CD 

T— 1 

1— 1 

1—1 

1— 1 

1— 1 

hi 

>> 

oS 

03 

CO 

iO 

2 

03  _g.S   [3   bJD 

OQ 

o 

c3 

«i  5   M  ftft 

CD 

T— 1 

CD 
r-4 

i-S 

rO 

THH 

(N 

i— I 
<N 
Ol 

CO 

oa 

(N 

CD 

i— i 

CD 

CD 

a 

-D 

CD 

'o 

P4 


CD 


Bulletin  342] 


HOG   FEEDING    EXPERIMENTS 


391 


to"C  S  "~ ' 


T2 
<U   60 


S  d  o  j)  ^ 
on  O  a 


a 


cs  cd 

GO    Ci 
<N    00 


o  ^ 

a  a 

i-H  l> 

cD  00 

rj5  CO 


CD 


C5    CD 
CO    CO 


O      CD 
CO   00 


73 

01 

J> 1>  60      o  ^         00  00 
Mgw      (NCO        lOGO 

S3  g3    co'ai      cocj 


o3 

on 

,0 


X 

W 

PQ 
<^ 


as 

«! 

Q 
o 

00 

M 
O 
fe 

©. 
H 


O 

►Q 

o 
«! 


02 

o 

h-l 

Ph 

00 


00 

1— I 

as 


o 

CO 
c3 


o 

S-c 

o3 


o  a 


03:2.5  £  M 
on  -0  6C  ►*  n 


e3  J.S  £  M 

•  O  03  £•- 
en  +S  60  a  °* 


■  a) 


tfl 


a) 


o 
cX' 
c3.£ 


03^3 


id 
a) 
o> 


>> 

o 

o 

cd 

^ 

rp 

X 

1 

1 

a 

£ 

CD 

CD 

CM 

tO 

Ci 

tO 

o 

OS 

t^ 

Ci 

TjH 

05 

00 

<M 

i— 1 

oo 


CD 
tO 


O 

o 

Ci 

Ci 


tO 

to 


to 

00 

LO 


73  a 

^  a 

o  .y 


CO 
CO 

CO 


00 


o 

CO 


CO 
00 

>o 


73 
(3 

p 

o 

o 


PQ 

< 


c3  j>> 
tfi'oS 

-Qt3 


o  J2 

•  03 

z-3 


CD 
CO 


<N 


0) 


cu 


3 


PQ^ 


C<J 


CD 

a^ 

o  a 

>5    CD 

PQP^ 


o 

1-^ 


392  UNIVERSITY  OF   CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION 

TRIAL  IV. — The  Belative  Fattening  Value  of  Skim  Milk  versus  Whey 

From  January  11  to  May  24,  1917,  a  period  of  138  days,  two  lots 
of  six  pigs  each  were  fed  respectively  rolled  barley  one  part  and 
skim  milk  three  parts,  and  rolled  barley  one  part  and  whole  milk 
whey  five  parts. 

This  project  was  duplicated  from  March  11  to  May  30,  1918— 
eighty  days — with  eight  pigs  in  each  lot,  ground  milo  being  used 
instead  of  rolled  barley. 

The  milk  and  whey  were  fed  in  three  feeds  per  day,  the  barley 
or  milo  was  placed  in  self  feeders. 

The  tabulated  results  of  the  two  trials  are  given  in  Tables  X  and 
XI,  and  the  combined  results  in  Table  XII. 

Most  authorities  agree  that  5  to  6  lbs.  skim  milk  equals  1  lb.  grain. 
From  this  experiment  therefore  12.88  lbs.  of  whey  equals  approxi- 
mately 7.94  lbs.  of  skim  milk  in  producing  gains.  Sixty-two  per  cent 
more  whey  than  skim  milk  is  required  to  make  a  pound  of  gain. 

Results  less  favorable  to  the  whey  would  be  expected  with  smaller 
pigs,  from  the  fact  that  young  animals  require  relatively  more  pro- 
tein in  their  feed  than  older  ones,  and  skim  milk  is  higher  in  protein 
than  is  whey,  which  is  essentially  a  carbohydrate  feed. 


TRIAL   V. — On   the   Comparative   Value   of   Various    Protein    Supplements 

in  Pork  Production 

Since  skim  milk  and  buttermilk  are  not  available  on  many  hog 
ranches  in  sufficient  amounts  to  balance  the  ration  correctly,  the 
progressive  hog  breeder  is  always  on  the  lookout  for  commercial  sub- 
stitutes. 

This  trial  was  to  secure  some  data  on  the  relative  value  of  digester 
tankage,  fish  meal  tankage,  and  milkolene*  compared  to  skim  milk  or 
buttermilk. 

Five  lots  of  ten  pigs  each,  all  pure-breds,  averaging  about  122  lbs. 
each  at  the  beginning  of  the  trial,  were  fed  as  follows : 

Lot  I.     Rolled  barley,  self  fed.    Skim  milk,  hand  fed. 

Lot  II.     Rolled  barley,  self  fed.     Milkolene,  hand  fed. 

Lot   III.     Rolled  barley,  self  fed.     Tankage,  self  fed. 

Lot    [V.     Rolled  barley,  self  fed.     Fish  meal,  self  fed. 

Lot  V.     Rolled  barley,  self  fed. 


*  Milkolene  is  :i  patented  condensed  buttermilk  preparation  that  lias  lately  been 

placed   on   the   market    in   this  state. 


Bulletin  342] 


HOG   FEEDING   EXPERIMENTS 


393 


Approximately  3  lbs.  of  skim  milk  and  of  milkolene,  the  latter 
diluted  according  to  directions,  were  fed  for  each  lb.  of  barley. 
The  tabulated  results  appear  in  Table  XIII. 


Lot  V 

Barley 

Lbs. 

1228 
2182.5 
*909.5 
1.30 

5254^ 


7.50 


TABLE  XIII 

Ten  Pigs  in  Each  Lot.     Fed  70  Days 
October  10-December  20,  1918 

Lot  1  Lot  II  Lot  III  Lot  IV 

Barley  Barley  Barley  Barley 

Ration  Skim  milk  Milkolene  Tankage  Fish  meal 

Lbs.  Lbs.  Lbs.  Lbs. 

Initial  weight 1236  1231  1234  1226 

Final  weight 2306  2145  2288  2158.5 

Total  gain 1070  914  1054  **932.5 

Average  daily  gain..  1.53  1.30  1.50  1.33 
Total  feed: 

Barley 5321  5295  5338^  5160^ 

Supplementary  6720  6720  120  164 

feed skim  milk  milkolene  tankage  fish  meal 

Average  daily  feed 

Grain 7.6  7.56  7.62  7.37 

barley  barley  barley  barley 
Supplementary 

feed 9.6  9.60  .17  .23 

skim  milk  milkolene  tankage  fish  meal 
Feed  consumed  for 

lib.  of  gain 4.97  5.79  5.06  5.53 

barley  barley  barley  barley 

6.28  7.35  .11  .17 

skim  milk  milkolene  tankage  fish  meal 
Cost  of  1  lb.  gain  at 

prices  listed  below        11.51c  13.41c  10.58c  11.74c 

♦November  8  one  pig  died,  another  45  lbs.  heavier  put  in,  which  reduces  total  gain 

**One  pig  in  this  lot  gained  only  13  lbs.,  her  litter  mates  gained  100  lbs.  or  more, 
more  satisfactory  results  are  to  be  expected  from  fish  meal  than  are  shown  here. 

All  lots  self  fed. 

Feeds — Cost: 

Barley $2.00  per  100  lbs. 

Skim  milk 25  per  100  lbs. 

Milkolene 25  per  100  lbs. 

Tankage 4.20  per  100  lbs. 

Fish  meal 4.00  per  100  lbs. 


It  should  be  noted  that  the  pigs  were  heavier  than  average  feeders 
at  the  beginning  of  this  trial,  so  that  the  feed  required  for  each  pound 
of  gain  appears  to  be  relatively  high. 

Apparently  no  gains  were  secured  from  the  milkolene,  the  amount 
of  barley  required  for  a  pound  of  gain  being  almost  identically  the 
same  in  Lots  II  and  V.  Little  was  learned  on  the  comparative  value 
of  fish  meal  and  tankage  because  of  the  unthriftiness  of  one  pig  in 
Lot  IV,  which  was  not  evident  at  the  time  the  trial  was  begun. 

This  project  was  duplicated  two  months  later  with  pigs  averaging 
about  112  lbs.,  and  the  summary  follows  in  Table  XIV. 


5.78 


11.56c 

45  lbs. 
Therefore, 


394 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION 


In  this  trial,  fish  meal  gave  about  the  same  results  as  tankage. 
Because  of  a  scarcity  of  pigs,  no  lot  was  fed  barley  alone,  but  it  is 
interesting  to  note  that  the  amount  of  barley  required  for  a  pound 
of  gain  in  Lot  II  was  very  similar  to  that  required  in  Lots  II  and  V 
of  the  previous  trial  where  no  gains  could  apparently  be  credited  to 
the  milkoline. 

In  this  trial  skim  milk  was  somewhat  more  economical  than  was 
tankage  in  the  first  trial. 

The  average  of  the  two  trials  is  as  follows : 


TABLE    XIV 

Ten  Pigs  in  Each  Lot.     Fed  58  Days 
February  25-April  24,  1919 

Lot  I  Lot  II                      Lot  III  Lot  IV 

Ground  barley  Ground  barley  Ground  barley  Ground  barley 

Skim  milk  Milkolene                   Tankage  Fish  meal 

Ration                                           lbs.  lbs.                              lbs.  lbs. 

Initial  weight 1118  1128  1129  1122 

Final  weight 2045  1864  1922  1904 

Total  gain... 927  *676  793  782 

Average  daily  gain 

per  pig 1.60  1.17  1.37  1.35 

Total  feed 3833  barley  3890  barley  3887  barley        3831  barley 

6534  milk  6534  milkolene  229  tankage  226  fish  meal 

Av.  daily  feed 6.6  barley  6.7  barley  6.7  barley  6.6  barley 

11.3  sk.  milk  11.3  milkolene        .39  tankage         .39  fish  m. 

Feed  consumed  for  1      4.13  barley  5.75  barley  4.90  barley  4.89  barley 

lb.  of  gain 7.05  sk.  milk      7.05  milkolene      .28  tank.  .29  fish  m. 

Cost  of  1  lb.  gain  at 

prices  listed  below              10.2  13.26  10.98  10.84 

*March  4  one  Berkshire  gilt,  weight  115  lbs.,  taken  out,  Durroc  barrow,  weight  175  lbs.,  put 
in,  which  reduces  total  gain  60  lbs. 

All  lots  self  fed — each  feed  in  separate  feeders,  except  skim  milk  and  milkolene — they  were 
hand  fed. 

Feeds — Cost: 

Barley $2.00  per  100  lbs. 

Skim  milk 25  per  100  lbs. 

Milkolene 25  per  100  lbs. 

Tankage 4.20  per  100  lbs. 

Fish  meal 4.00  per  100  lbs. 


TABLE  XV 

Summary — Protein   Supplements 

No.  of  Lbs.  average 

Kind  of  Feed  trials  daily  gain 

Hurley.. 2  1.56 

Skim  milk 

Barley 2  1.23 

Milkolene 

Barley     2  1.43 

Tankage  

Barley 2  1.31 

I  i  h  meal 


Feed  required 
for  1  lb.  gain 

4.55  barley 
6. GO  skim  milk 

5.77  barley 
8.47  milkolene 

4.98  barley 
.19  tankage 

5.21  barley 
.23  fish  meal 


Bulletin  342]  H0G  FEEDING  EXPERIMENTS  395 

The  averages  shown  in  Table  XV  would  indicate  that  the  prices 
paid  for  skim  milk  and  tankage,  namely  $0.25  and  $4.20  per  hun- 
dred are  the  correct  relative  prices  of  these  two  feeds  according  to 
the  averages  of  those  two  experiments. 

TRIAL  VI. — The  Value  of  Raisins  as  a  Feed  for  Swine* 

The  market  price  of  raisins  has  sometimes  been  very  low  and  there 
has  often  been  an  available  supply  of  second-grade  or  cull  raisins  that 
may  be  fed  to  hogs.  This  trial  was  conducted  for  the  purpose  of 
determining  the  value  of  this  material  for  feeding  hogs. 

The  different  lots  included  in  the  trial  were  fed  as  follows: 

Lot  I.  Ground  or  rolled  barley  and  alfalfa  meal  in  the  propor- 
tion of  5  :1,  by  weight. 

Lot  II.  Barley,  ground  or  rolled,  and  raisins,  equal  parts,  with 
the  same  amount  of  alfalfa  meal  as  Lot  I. 

Lot  III.  Raisins  and  alfalfa  meal,  the  same  amount  of  alfalfa 
meal  as  fed  to  Lot  I. 

The  experiment  proper  began  February  25,  1916,  when  the  pigs 
averaged  about  110  lbs.  each. 

The  results  of  this  experiment  are  shown  in  Table  XVI. 

Fourteen  different  varieties  of  dried  grapes  were  used  in  this  trial. 
While  no  attempt  was  made  to  determine  the  difference  in  feeding 
value  of  the  different  varieties,  it  was  noticeable  that  the  pigs  relished 
some  much  more  than  others,  and  throve  accordingly. 

The  pigs  seemed  to  relish  the  raisins  at  first,  but  tired  of  them 
toward  the  close,  especially  Lot  III.  It  was  hard  to  keep  this  lot  on 
feed.  Occasionally  they  scoured  severely.  Lot  II  gave  none  of  these 
troubles. 

The  sugar  in  the  raisins,  according  to  the  chemical  analysis,  ran 
as  high  as  73.9  per  cent  and  as  low  as  52.9  per  cent;  the  crude  fiber 
varied  from  10.40  per  cent  to  1.35  per  cent,  and  the  acid  (calculated 
as  tartaric  acid)  from  3.0  per  cent  to  1.20  per  cent. 

It  will  be  noted  from  Table  XVI  that  the  raisins  were  much  more 
effective  when  constituting  only  one-half  of  the  ration  than  when  fed 
alone.  When  fed  half  and  half,  2.97  lbs.  of  raisins  equalled  2.66  lbs. 
of  barley.  They  were,  therefore,  89  per  cent  as  efficient,  but  when 
fed  alone  it  required  11.13  lbs.  of  raisins  to  equal  5.63  lbs.  of  barley, 
an  efficiency  of  50  per  cent.  They  had,  in  reality,  even  a  still  lower 
efficiency  when  fed  alone,  for  the  pigs  on  raisins  only  reached  a  weight 
of  149.5  lbs.  on  the  average,  while  those  on  barley  reached  an  average 
weight  of  213.7  lbs. 


*  This  trial  was  conducted  in  cooperation  with  the  Division  of  Viticulture,  at 
the  suggestion  of  Professor  F.  T.  Bioletti. 


396  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT  STATION 


►» 

TO 
CD 

>> 

pped 
lfa  ha 

CD 

d 

a 

03 

pped 
lfa  ha 

O    o3 

Th 

CO 

O    03 

r^S 

o3 

*03 

<-*— i 

-dS3 

»   o3 

d2 

!h 

c3 

O    c3 

id  <M    (M 


■-^j         a^j       a?J 


x 


&      d 

d 

H-5 


o 


W  ^>^MWW      OS  C5  Tf 


00 


cu      ^>      1>  !>.  lO 


*r*  to  o3  o3  tJ)      M  1-H  OS 

00  ^%^%      «  <" 


CM 


Ik-'*  > 


03  33  03 

CD  h|n     CD  CD 

»o  a  s?«  a  *»  a 

_i  ►      kj     _,  co     _» 

"8   frs?  ^.a^  .a  ^ 

*       o3   S3  £     o3   S3  o3 


PQ 


^  pq  tf  <<  Pm  3 


o 

»d 


03 

ft 


T3 


o 


■«         jjasa  £  -d  dj  aS3  .d  g  aS3  h3 

.•■tfSiSd      o3S3J3s3  *  *3  S3  j*S3  'S^dd  - 

^J^'S     ^     cj    ooj  d     h     d     Oo3  fa,     c3     o   33  S 

^^Sft^co^io  t^r-^io  con®  6 


W) 

•  1-4 

ft 


X 


?n^H  53  CD '  O 

73  ®  S3    SS3       ^  .a  ^3    d^S3       .3  Sd    aS3 


«io3>>^£ft     ^  S3  id  S3  03-3S343S3  3  S3  ^3  S3  a 

M  >t5<~  C^OOt^CO  lOiCNCO  Cj>    O    £- 

03          g^COiOi-H  to  cq  >o  H  w  >o  o  j§ 

2  "3                       IS                  ^  °° 

^                                                                           CD             ^                             CD             ,.                      0>             ►.  T) 

3  -3             -£   13     oS3  7}     to     33     oS3         co     33     oS3  f, 
O      2          i-^ifeS1     d2-3«S3  d2     g     33     «S3         S     o3     oS3  S 

g     OS       3.8«2  g  ft  ft    i>  i-t  cm  *  Nt-^tN03  cq  cq  q  *  -d 

w     ^                  o           ^  o  t)h  o6  oo  o  tjh  d  in  m  ^ 

<J         _T                                                     lO    CO    H  N    N    CO     r- 1  CO     lO  3 

>        7        Cj 


■<3  O         ^  c3  +a 

H      ^      d  "I 

J»  »    Shi    d    fa    M        »C  CO  TJH  ^ 


c 

o 

a 

^ 

OJ 

d 

a 

r/> 

O; 

■ — i 

T3o 

<B 

i—i 

-r-( 

T3 

i—i 

. 

-d 

H 

OJ 

■P 

^a 

O 

M 

h^ 

'S 

^ 

CO 

i— 1 

0) 

CI 

*a 

6 

S5 

*3 

ED 

M  3 

'ft 

CO 

a> 

CO 

:d 

« 

H 

t) 

fa 

s 

n 

50 

fl(N 

o 

■—I 

*s 

l# 

X 

w 

9i 

H 

'S 

O 

S5 

^ 

03 

•  --« 

a 

STATION  PUBLICATIONS   AVAILABLE   FOR  FREE   DISTRIBUTION 


BULLETINS 

No.  No. 

185.  Report  of  Progress  in  Cereal  Investiga-  300. 

tions.  304. 
241.  Vine  Pruning  in  California,  Part  I. 

246.  Vine  Pruning  in  California,  Part  II.  308. 
251.  Utilization  of  the  Nitrogen  and  Organic 

Matter    in    Septic    and    Imhoff    Tank 

Sludges.  309. 
253.  Irrigation    and    Soil    Conditions    in    the 

Sierra  Nevada  Foothills,  California.  310. 

261.  Melaxumaof  the  Walnut,  "Juglans  regia."  312. 

262.  Citrus    Diseases    of    Florida    and    Cuba  313. 

Compared  with  Those  of  California.  316. 

263.  Size  Grades  for  Ripe  Olives.  317. 

266.  A  Spotting  of  Citrus  Fruits  Due  to  the  318. 

Action  of  Oil  Liberated  from  the  Rind.  320. 

267.  Experiments  with  Stocks  for  Citrus.  321. 

268.  Growing  and  Grafting  Olive  Seedlings.  323. 

270.  A  Comparison  of  Annual  Cropping,  Bi- 

ennial  Cropping,   and   Green   Manures  324. 
on  the  Yield  of  Wheat. 

271.  Feeding  Dairy  Calves  in  California.  325. 
273.  Preliminary  Report  on  Kearney  Vineyard 

Experimental  Drain. 

275.  The  Cultivation  of  Belladonna  in  Cali-  328. 

fornia.                      .  330. 

276.  The  Pomegranate.  331. 

278.  Grain  Sorghums.  332. 

279.  Irrigation  of  Rice  in  California.  334. 

280.  Irrigation  of  Alfalfa  in  the  Sacramento 

Valley.  335. 

282.  Trials  with   California   Silage  Crops   for 

Dairy  Cows.  336. 

283.  The  Olive  Insects  of  California. 

285.  The  Milk  Goat  in  California.  337. 

286.  Commercial  Fertilizers.  339. 

287.  Vinegar  from  Waste  Fruits. 

294.  Bean  Culture  in  California.  •  340. 

297.  The  Almond  in  California.  341. 

298.  Seedless  Raisin  Grapes.  342. 

299.  The  Use  of  Lumber  on  California  Farms. 


Commercial  Fertilizers. 

A  Study  on  the  Effects  of  Freezes  on 
Citrus  in  California. 

I.  Fumigation  with  Liquid  Hydrocyanic 
Acid.  II.  Physical  and  Chemical  Pro- 
perties of  Liquid  Hydrocyanic  Acid. 

I.  The  Carob  in  California.  II.  Nutritive 
Value  of  the  Carob  Bean. 

Plum  Pollination. 

Mariout  Barley. 

Pruning  Young  Deciduous  Fruit  Trees. 

The  Kaki  or  Oriental  Persimmon. 

Selections  of  Stocks  in  Citrus  Propagation. 

The  Effects  of  Alkali  on  Citrus  Trees. 

Control  of  the  Coyote  in  California. 

Commercial  Production  of  Grape  Syrup. 

Heavy  vs.  Light  Grain  Feeding  for  Dairy 
Cows. 

Storage  of  Perishable  Fruit  at  Freezing 
Temperatures. 

Rice  Irrigation  Measurements  and  Ex- 
periments in  Sacramento  Valley,  1914- 
1919. 

Prune  Growing  in  California. 

Dehydration  of  Fruits. 

Phylloxera-Resistant  Stocks. 

Walnut  Culture  in  California. 

Preliminary  Volume  Tables  for  Second- 
Growth  Redwoods. 

Cocoanut  Meal  as  a  Feed  for  Dairy  Cows 
and  Other  Livestock. 

The  Preparation  of  Nicotine  Dust  as  an 
Insecticide. 

Some  Factors  of  Dehydrater  Efficiency. 

The  Relative  Cost  of  Making  Logs  from 
Small  and  Large  Timber. 

Control  of  the  Pocket  Gopher  in  California. 

Studies  on  Irrigation  of  Citrus  Groves. 

Hog  Feeding  Experiments. 


CIRCULARS 


No.  No. 

70.  Observations    on    the    Status    of    Corn  164. 

Growing  in  California.  165. 

82.  The  Common  Ground  Squirrels  of  Cali- 
fornia. 166. 

87.  Alfalfa.  167. 

110.  Green  Manuring  in  California.  169. 

111.  The  Use  of  Lime  and  Gypsum  on  Cali-  170. 

fornia  Soils. 

113.  Correspondence  Courses  in  Agriculture.  172. 

115.  Grafting  Vinifera  Vineyards.  173. 

126.  Spraying  for  the  Grape  Leaf  Hopper.  174. 

127.  House  Fumigation.  175. 

128.  Insecticide  Formulas. 

129.  The  Control  of  Citrus  Insects.  178. 

130.  Cabbage  Growing  in  California.  179. 
138.  The  Silo  in  California  Agriculture. 

144.  Oidium  or  Powdery  Mildew  of  the  Vine.  181. 

148.  "Lungworms."  182. 

151.  Feeding  and  Management  of  Hogs. 

152.  Some  Observations  on  the  Bulk  Handling  183. 

of  Grain  in  California.  184. 

153.  Announcement    of    the    California    State  188. 

Dairy  Cow  Competition,  1916-18.  189. 

154.  Irrigation    Practice    in    Growing    Small  190. 

Fruits  in  California.  193. 

155.  Bovine  Tuberculosis.  198. 

157.  Control  of  the  Pear  Scab.  201. 

158.  Home  and  Farm  Canning.  202. 

159.  Agriculture  in  the  Imperial  Valley. 

160.  Lettuce  Growing  in  California.  203. 

161.  Potatoes  in  California.  205. 


Small  Fruit  Culture  in  California. 

Fundamentals  of  Sugar  Beet  Culture 
under  California  Conditions. 

The  County  Farm  Bureau. 

Feeding  Stuffs  of  Minor  Importance. 

The  1918  Grain  Crop. 

Fertilizing  California  Soils  for  the  1918 
Crop. 

Wheat  Culture. 

The  Construction  of  the  Wood-Hoop  Silo. 

Farm  Drainage  Methods. 

Progress  Report  on  the  Marketing  and 
Distribution  of  Milk. 

The  Packing  of  Apples  in  California. 

Factors  of  Importance  in  Producing  Milk 
of  Low  Bacterial  Count. 

Control  of  the  California  Ground  Squirrel. 

Extending  the  Area  of  Irrigated  Wheat  in 
California  for  1918. 

Infectious  Abortion  in  Cows. 

A  Flock  of  Sheep  on  the  Farm. 

Lambing  Sheds. 

Winter  Forage  Crops. 

Agriculture  Clubs  in  California. 

A  Study  of  Farm  Labor  in  California. 

Syrup  from  Sweet  Sorghum. 

Helpful  Hints  to  Hog  Raisers. 

County  Organizations  for  Rural  Fire  Con- 
trol. 

Peat  as  a  Manure  Substitute. 

Blackleg. 


CIRCULARS— Continued 


of 


in 


No. 

206.  Jack  Cheese. 

208.  Summary  of  the  Annual  Reports  of  the 

Farm  Advisors  of  California. 

209.  The  Function  of  the  Farm  Bureau. 

210.  Suggestions  to  the  Settler  in  California. 
212.  Salvaging  Rain-Damaged  Prunes. 

214.  Seed    Treatment   for   the   Prevention 

Cereal  Smuts. 

215.  Feeding  Dairy  Cows  in  California. 

217.  Methods    for    Marketing    Vegetables 

California. 

218.  Advanced  Registry  Testing  of  Dairy  Cows. 

219.  The  Present  Status  of  Alkali. 

220.  Unfermented  Fruit  Juices. 

221.  How  California  is  Helping  People  Own 

Farms  and  Rural  Homes. 

223.  The  Pear  Thrips. 

224.  Control  of  the  Brown  Apricot  Scale  and 

the    Italian   Pear   Scale    on    Deciduous 
Fruit  Trees. 

225.  Propagation  of  Vines. 

227.  Plant  Diseases  and  Pest  Control. 

228.  Vineyard  Irrigation  in  Arid  Climates. 

229.  Cordon  Pruning. 

230.  Testing  Milk,  Cream,  and  Skim  Milk  for 

Butterfat. 


No. 

231.  The  Home  Vineyard. 

232.  Harvesting     and      Handling     California 

Cherries  for  Eastern  Shipment. 

233.  Artificial  Incubation. 

234.  Winter   Injury  to  Young  Walnut  Trees 

During  1921-22. 

235.  Soil  Analysis  and  Soil  and  Plant  Inter- 

relations. 

236.  The  Common  Hawks  and  Owls  of  Cali- 

fornia   from    the    Standpoint    of    the 
Rancher. 

237.  Directions  for  the  Tanning  and  Dressing 

of  Furs. 

238.  The  Apricot  in  California. 

239.  Harvesting  and   Handling   Apricots   and 

Plums  for  Eastern  Shipment. 

240.  Harvesting  and  Handling  Pears  for  East- 

ern Shipment. 

241.  Harvesting    and    Handling    Peaches    for 

Eastern  Shipment. 

242.  Poultry  Feeding. 

243.  Marmalade  Juice  and   Jelly   Juice   from 

Citrus  Fruits. 

244.  Central  Wire  Bracing  for  Fruit  Trees. 

245.  Vine  Pruning  Systems. 


